All right. There are two new amendments:
Graham has proposed an amendment to his own amendment, which is co-sponsored by Carl Levin and John Kyl. Here is a PDF of it. It still cuts off habeas but it allows more judicial review than the version that Graham stuck into the appropriations bill last Friday. Bingaman has also proposed a new amendment. Here's a PDF of that. It allows habeas, but it cuts off lawsuits challenging the conditions of confinement.
I know Graham's new amendment is an improvement over his Friday amendment, while Bingaman's amendment is, in an effort to garner votes, worse than his earlier amendment. I don't really know how much better and worse in either case. Of the four cosponsors of those amendments, I trust Levin and Bingaman quite a lot and Graham (after this episode) and Kyl (as always) not at all. And Levin has stated that he prefers Bingaman's amendment to the one he co-wrote with Graham and Kyl, but that one is still far preferable to the one that passed Friday.
The AP, Reuters, and the Washington Post have all written articles on these provisions. The Post article says the Levin/Kyl/Graham Amendment might be linked to the McCain amendment in an effort to get both of them through conference. I don't know if that's true, and I don't know if it's a good deal or a bad deal if it is true. At this point I don't trust Graham at all, and I don't trust McCain much. The only advice I can give is to name a few of the Congressmen in Washington who I think are the most trustworthy and dedicated on this issue: Levin, Durbin, Bingaman, Leahy, Feingold, Kennedy. Markey and I think also Murtha in the House. If you don't know what's going on, find out what they're doing and ask your own reps. to do the same.
I apologize for leaving everyone hanging like this. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have done as much as possible to research this issue, which has such a huge effect on hundreds of people's lives and on what kind of country the United States will be, and to not even really understand what these bills mean on the day before the Senate votes on them. I went to law school, and have very smart people who know a lot about this issue trying to explain this to me, and I still feel like I've wandered into this scene. As Judge Joyce Hens Green said of Moustafa Idr's trial, it would be funny if the stakes weren't so horribly high.
Unfortunately I don't think I can update this tomorrow, so hopefully some of our commenters can fill the gaps.
I should say, despite the negative tone of this post: the situation looks a lot better now than it looked Friday or last night. Thanks to everyone who linked or called their Senators.
(Graham, by the way, is still being a horrible demagogue about this:
"Graham said the Senate‘s support last week for his original amendment reflected lawmakers‘ frustration that habeas corpus claims "were being exercised by noncitizen foreign terrorist suspects to the point that they were flooding our courts."
Granting enemy combatants such access to federal courts gives "an enemy prisoner a right that an enemy prisoner has never enjoyed before in the law of armed conflict," he said."